North America Free Trade Agreement
You may be asking yourself: " what is an EPA? " Well, you are not alone. In fact I have just met with a European Member of Parliament who is no more au courant than you. And that’s worrying!
The International Federation for Human Rights has published the report of a fact-finding mission on the effects on human rights of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The mission, conducted in Mexico between 22 and 31 of August 2005, looked specifically at the effects of NAFTA, ten years after its entering into force, on employment and working conditions in the Northern part of the country, in particular in the maquilas and in the informal economy.
Thanks to NAFTA’s success, the flood of illegal immigration is up and the standard of living of the average Mexican is down.
A state-run research center said Monday that some of the countries that signed a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States have lost their export competitiveness.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety "is alive," although there were complaints about and criticism of modifications to the final agreement reached at the Third Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (MOP3). The aim of the compromise that Mexico successfully pressed for is to not hinder the country’s free trade agreements with other countries.
With the world’s two big multi-country trade liberalization talks stumbling or moribund, Canada’s new government should fire up action on bilateral and smaller regional free-trade deals.
The labor side agreement of NAFTA hasn’t forced anybody to take responsibility. It’s not an effective guarantee of anyone’s rights.
US drug agents say that free trade with Mexico has had an ugly and unintended consequence: Just as legitimate business people have flocked to Nuevo Laredo, so have criminals.
But in just over a decade, an estimated 1 million farmers in rural Mexico have lost their livelihoods.
Last year was the tenth anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and nearly all evaluations of the agreement conceded that the period showed negligible or negative results for Mexico. As the developing country partner of the agreement, Mexico’s experience under NAFTA has major implications for other developing nations negotiating FTA’s, particularly with the United States.
Instead of heeding the wave of social opposition, the United States has dug into its trenches, and in economic policy those trenches are the bilateral trade agreements.
The leader of Mexico’s largest farm union has demanded a review of the North American Free Trade Agreement before final tariff reductions take effect in 2008.
Recent developments in international trade highlight the difficulties facing the 15-member Caribbean Community (Caricom) as it prepares for a key World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial meeting in Hong Kong this December.
The United States, such a paragon and champion of free trade when it comes to exporting its own products and services, evidently considers itself free unilaterally to ignore the rules when the umpire comes down against it.
Washington says it has no plans to obey a NAFTA ruling that compels the United States to refund an estimated $5-billion in illegally collected duties to Canadian lumber producers — setting up a potential trade war that experts say could threaten the future of the North American trading bloc.
A few words of unsolicited advice to Congress and the President, who appear bent on approving a Central America Free Trade Agreement to go along with the North American one best known as NAFTA: Please go slowly.
The lack of worker and environmental protections leads the list of concerns as CAFTA is modeled after the failed 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. At its 10-year anniversary, the verdict on NAFTA is in: It is an economic, social and environmental failure.
Promoters of the proposed Dominican Republic/Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) have asserted that it will provide significant benefits to the U.S. economy, especially to the agricultural sector. Similar promises were made in the debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992 and 1993. However, since that time NAFTA has failed to live up to these promises, and similar promises made for CAFTA are even less likely to be fulfilled.
The Argentine government said it will try to annul a ruling by the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in favour of US company CMS Energy Corp.
A new study by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch analyzes 42 NAFTA investor-state challenges and illustrates how the proposed CAFTA would extend the threat.